Stephen Hammonds v. Robert Theakston, et al.

Respondents are jail officials who deliberately left Petitioner Stephen Hammonds, a Type-1 diabetic pre-trial detainee, in solitary confinement for days without providing him the care and insulin needed for his insulin-dependent diabetes. Respondents knew Hammonds suffered from Type I diabetes and were well aware of the life threatening risk associated in depriving Hammonds sufficient insulin to treat his Type-I diabetes. Due to inadequate care for this condition over the course of seventeen (17) days, Hammonds declined into Diabetic Ketoacidosis (“DKA”), suffered severe pain, organ failure, and was finally hospitalized in critical condition. Following his release, Hammonds was diagnosed for the first time with peripheral neuropathy (permanent nerve damage) resulting from insulin deprivation. Petitioner brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Respondents awarding them qualified immunity without ever reviewing the constitutional deprivation for which the immunity was granted. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and found it was not necessary to address the Constitutional deprivation before awarding qualified immunity. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Hammonds’ claim for deliberate indifference failed because his constitutional rights were not clearly established by reference to appellate decisions under these precise circumstances. The Eleventh Circuit’s limitation of deliberate indifference claims directly conflicts with the holdings of the Supreme Court, and other circuits.